moonslav59

Yes, and nobody expected even half that (1.6). I did expect 1.0 to 1.3 and liked him better than Ottavino as our closer on opening day, despite Ottavino's better numbers in many categories. I think most here wanted Barnes over Ottavino, but weren't happy with either as the 2021 closer. Barnes sure shut us up! (Ottavino has won us over, too, after a slow start.)

I hear you, and although I do enjoy stats, I also like to enjoy and discuss the finer points of the game and the aspects data can never capture. I'd never love this game like I do, if I never played it. I was never good at hitting, but I got on base enough, ran well and defended very well. I enjoy watching the game like you do. Being a stat nerd does not mean I can't see other things- not that you implied I cannot or do not. Yes, the game threads are dominated by frustration fueled insults and lashing out. I'd love to sit down with you to watch a game, sometime. Just us two. I always respect your views and opinions.

If that was even a thought in Bloom's mind, Duran would have played some 2B in AAA.

Yes, it will take longer than 3 years to start seeing the results. It's not just drafting or acquiring the right pitching prospects; it's bout developing them. One might say Whitlock is some evidence that this management team is better than past ones, in terms of adding better pitching prospects. Maybe Houck is an example of improved pitching development. Yes, it's early, but I like what I'm seeing and reading about this new group of decision-makers.

Best OPS on the farm (100+ ABs) 1.004 Cordero (6 HRs in 150 As) .983 Granberg (9 HRs) .979 Mieses (15 HRs) .976 Dearden (10 HRs) .939 T Reed (13 HRs) .938 Meneses (10 HRs) .926 Duran (15 HRs) .903 Herrmann (5) .894 Wilson (10 ) .890 Howlett (10) .885 S Scott (8) .885 Fitzgerald (8) .862 Castellanos (9) .821 Cottam (5) .788 Ockimey (10) .785 Yorke (3) .776 Casas (6)

harmony, you know very well those projections are always very conservative. The probably project Devers to have an .820 OPS. The debate we are having is not about 2022, It's about pre 2021 Barnes in various time frames. It started with my point about him being worth this recent contract even without the 2021 numbers. I think he was, but it's a close call. Posting 2021 numbers and 2022-2023projections have nothing to do with with the statement you responded to.

Okay.If you think Mo was just "very good" then I can see not wanting to call Barnes "very good." Mo was the best, but I guess if you are just very good and everyone else sucks, it doesn't make you elite, right? 12 seasons over a 2 fWAR, including 7 straight. 17 seasons over 1.2 in an 18 year stretch. Just "very good." Okay.

My point was just about 2017-2019 or when I included 2020 to justify paying him $8M a year. I never said his overall career numbers are very good. I say 2017-2020- you respond 2014-2020 or just 2020. You don't think he was very good even from 2017-2020. Fine, but you may be alone holding that opinion.

I'm not one to think RP'ers deserve big money, but even I think WAR undervalues RP'ers. The high WAR RP'ers often are the high IP ones, not the ones that get the big outs more often. I still think OPS Against is one of the best tools to measure how good a pitcher is, just like using OPS to know who the best hitters are. When your OPS against is between .500 and .680 for 4 straight years, then .705 in a COVID year with just 23 IP, you are at least a very good pitcher. I'm not sure I can settle on saying just "good," but as long as someone is consistent with their criteria I'd probably not argue. Barnes has had a remarkably consistent and very good OPS Against. He's pitched in a hitters park was more than half his games. He's pitched against an AL East division known for top offenses. He's pitched on teams that are weak defensively. He's top 6 to 25% in many key categories, not just OPS Against. Even WAR and WHIP, maybe his weakest areas, he's still top 33% from 2017 onwards. Not thinking this is very good is puzzling to me, but to each his own, I guess.

If you are better than 94% of your peers you can't suck. Also, now you are changing your term from average or above average to "suck." Am I not supposed to take you at your word, here?

But you kept using Barnes' whole career numbers as the guide. How many RP'ers average a 2-3 WAR per season over their whole career?

There were 185 examples of a RP'er having a 1.3 WAR or better from 2014-2020. That's an average of 27 per year in MLB, or less than one per team on average. I guess we still just view the meaning of very good differently. I'm fine with that. Let's move on. I'm happy we signed him to $8M x 2 and would have been had they did it right before 2021. You and others feel differently. That's OK.

Top 6% and 13% and 13% in the 3 categories you chose is not "very good?" What is very good, excellent and elite? top 1% Elite top 2-3% Excellent top 4-5 % Very good top 6-40% good top 41-49% above average? (BTW, thank you for finally answering.)

Maybe Cashman and Bloom created this as a ploy to delay their firings by a few days. I heard something like this on Breitbart.

Again, we have a very different management and player development people than even 3 years ago, let alone 15.

I guess Cora thinks Kike is one of the best defensive 2Bmen in MLB. I don't see it, but I haven't seen him play there much. I know Kike is a plus in CF. If Cora thinks Arroyo is better at 1B than Kike or the net gain is better for Kike 2B/Arroyo 1B vs Arroyo 2B/Kike 1B, I trust he knows what he's doing. Then, there is maybe calling up Cordero to take some or all of Dalbec's PAs at 1B. Lot's still to work out.

You wanna know just how silly this point is? Using your numbers (fWAR) and your cherry-picked time frame (2014-2020) do you want to know hom many RP'ers have averaged a 2.0 WAR in those 7 years? ZERO! Using your criteria, you have to be better than anyone else to be called better than a "role player" let alone "very good" or God forbid "elite" Chapman 13.7/7= 1.9 Jansen 12.4/7= 1.7 Betances 11.3/7= 1.6 All role players. Good one! You win!

You keep moving the goal posts. Nobody is saying he was very good from 2014-2016. You said he was never very good. Now you offer his career and 2020 numbers as proof he was never very good. Please answer. Was he good or very good from 2017-2019? I gave you all my numbers and your stat numbers. BTW, fangraphs hardly ever gives RP'er a WAR above 2. I guess that means only a very select few are very good. Do you think there is a difference between very good and elite or excellent? If so, what is it for RP'ers?

21st out of 210 plus? Okay, we just disagree on what very good means. Each team carries 7+ RP'ers at any given time. 7 x 30 teams= 210, not counting all those shuffled in and out. 21 out of 210 is top 10%. I can't understand not thinking that is very good. There are other words for better than very good: excellent Fantastic superb elite Very good means better than good, to me. Good means better than average or better than slightly better than average. Maybe you see these terms differently, but I think most would say top 10% is very good. A 90 on a test is very good.

You never said his career was not good. You said he was never good. To you, only 2020 and his career count. You refuse to even answer if he was good from 2017-2019. I never said he was very good over his whole career or just 2020. We may have had a misunderstanding over my comment about 2017-2020, where I meant combined and you took it to mean each year from 2017-202o, but I clarified that early on and yet you never respond to my question or points. Was Barnes good or very good from 2017-2019? Yes or no.

From 2017-2019, Barnes places 21st in fWAR at 3.5. The 8th best RP'er was at 4.6 17th best at 3.8 This is out of hundreds of RP'ers. If you include 2020, he's 26th. From 2016-2020, he's 34th out of over 210 RP'ers (7 per team) If you want to hold 2014-2015 against him, his 2014-2020 fWAR places 65th out of 210. That's top one-third- clearly better than average but maybe not good enough to say "very good". My point was about him being very good for a good period of time (2017-2019), so good that even if you added the s0-s0 2020 numbers, he still comes out very good. My original point was that his 2017-2020 combined numbers warranted a contract close to $8M x 2. I still think that is correct or not far off..

Yes, I agreed 2020's .705 OPS against was not good- just not all that bad either. If a hitter was hitting .705, we'd want him benched.

I disagree, but even using your stats Barnes was very good from 2017-2019, but you won't admit it. You prefer to single out his 23 IP 2020 season, as if that is what counts most. Was Brnes very good from 2017-2019 or not? He was top 6% in one of your stats and top 13% in two others. If that's not "very good" then our disagreement is not about Barnes. It's about what we think is very good.

I said he was very good from 2017-2020. I explained later I meant combined and pointed out his.705 OPS against in 2020 was not all that bad. No, he was not very good in 2020. I think we are just having difficulty understanding our terminology and definitions and not so much the actual facts. When I say 2017-2020, I mean combined numbers, otherwise, I'd say every year from 2017 to 2020. He clearly was very good from 2017-2019 by even teh stats you choose, yet you said He was "never very good." Did you not mean that? Was it just hyperbole like you saying everybody bashed Nick?

I've never neglected the bad walk numbers. OPS has been proven to be one of the most accurate stats at estimating run creation for hitters and prevention for pitchers. ERA, SIERA, ERA+ and ERA- measure runs allowed and adjusted runs allowed. They ate not projecting run prevention. Maybe our big issue is over terminology and definitions. Maybe to you, "very good" is "great" to me, and good is very good. Average is good.... I have used OPS to an extreme over the last few years. To me, it shows a lot. It factors walks and getting on base and also power. ERA depends heavily on park dimensions, team defense and strength of opponent. While WHIP does capture much of what goes into run prevention, a walk is = to a hit and a single is = to a HR. You can choose to ignore OPS and OPS Against, but that stat shows Barnes has been much better than Average. Whether it's good or very good might be based on how we define those terms. If you go by ERA+. Barnes was 27% better than average from 2017-2020 combined. You never answered if you thought that was just good or "very good." I don't like that stat for RP'ers, but I'm using it because ERA is what you seem to like. You chose to use SIERA, FIP and xFIP to bash Barnes' 2020 season and also said he was "never very good," well, let's look at your chosen stats and Barnes from 2017-2020. Out of 218 RP'ers with 100+ IP, here's how Barnes ranked in those three stats: SIERA 32nd at 3.21 (That is top 15% and it includes his off 2020 season) xFIP 15th at 3.12 (That's top 7% or nearing elite status with your stat!) FIP (BTW, I prefer xFIP- over xFIP for the same reasons I prefer ERA- or ERA+ and even SIERA over plain ole ERA.) Ok, say he was not good in 2020, but don't say he was "never" very good. I'll take out 2020 and now tell me, he was never "very good" from 2017-2019: 225 RP'ers with 90+ IP: 29th in SIERA (3.12) top 13% 13th in xFIP (3.02) top 6% and better than Kenley Jackson, Brad Hand and many others. 31st in FIP (3.12) top 13% I'm not all that big on FIP, but it does have value. xFIP- has him ranked 13th,also. That is close to elite, and IMO "very good" by any way you slice and dice it. Really, only BB/9 and WHIP show him not to be very good from 2017-2019. Even here, he is above average.